IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 38614 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S:

K C BABU AGED 52 YEARS S/O K.G. CHELLAPPAN, KARAKANDATHIL HOUSE, VADAYAR P.O, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686605 BY ADVS.

A.T.ANILKUMAR V.SHYLAJA JOSE PAUL THOTTAM FATHIMA RAZAK ASWIN ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS:

1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY , DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

2 THE ASSISTANT DEWAWSOM COMMISSIONER VAIKOM GROUP, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686141

3 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER VAIKOM GROUP, VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686141 OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.G.BIJU-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P9 order. The petitioner joined the service of the 1^st respondent as 'Sambandhi' on 28.05.1991. The petitioner belongs to "Vishwakarma' caste in Hindu religion. Right from his entry in service, the petitioner was facing caste shaming on the pretext that Sambandhi work is normally being done in all temples either by a member of Marar Caste or Kurup Caste. The appointment of the petitioner, a lower caste member, has irked other employees and they started making issues against him even for trivial things. The petitioner hails from a poor family and he has no other means or income to survive himself or his family members. During 1998, while the petitioner was working as 'Sambandhi’ in Kizhoor Bagavathi Temple, the 3^rd and 4^th respondents initiated enquiry against him on the basis of a false anonymous complaint. An explanation was called for from the petitioner and he had filed the objection. Thereafter, since the petitioner did not receive any further intimation from the respondents, he was under the impression that the complaint was closed.

2. According to the petitioner, in the year

2018, he realized that his two consecutive increments have been barred with cumulative effect. The petitioner states that he came to know about the punishment when he understood that his juniors were getting more salary than him. The petitioner submitted Exts.P3 and P4 representations before the authorities to restore the increments. Since there was no response, the petitioner preferred W.P(c)

No.5915/2023 and this Court, by Ext.P8 Judgment, directed the Devaswom Commissioner to consider Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of two months. Pursuant to Ext.P8, the Devaswom Commissioner passed Ext.P9 order treating Ext.P4 as an appeal under Rule 23 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1960 and rejected the same as hopelessly barred by limitation since the request for restoration of the increments was made after 25 years.

3. It is to be noted that, admittedly, the punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner during the year 1998. The petitioner has not challenged the said order for nearly 21 years. The case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the punishment cannot be true since barring of increments with cumulative effect will lead to reduction in his salary.

The petitioner was not diligent and vigilant in prosecuting his claim against the order imposing the punishment. The petitioner wakes up with his claim after an inexplicable delay of 21 years. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P9 order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE al/-.

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38614/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE ENTRY OF FIRST APPOINTMENT Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE ORDER NO.ROC 4817/98/V.G Exhibit P